Enforcement Directorate vs Shri Debabrata Halder
2022 Latest Caselaw 7653 Cal

 D/L25                                C.R.M. (SB) 93 of 2022
18.11.2022

Bpg.

In Re: An application seeking for cancellation of bail under Section 439(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973;

Enforcement Directorate Versus Shri Debabrata Halder

Mr. Arijit Chakraborty.

...for the applicant/ED.

Mr. Debasish Roy, Mr. Soumik Ganguly, Mr. Dilip Kumar Sadhu, Mr. Lalratan Mondal.

...for the opposite party no.1. Mr. Biswajit Hazra, Mr. Archisman Sain, Mr. Arif Mahammad Khan.

...for the accused nos. 2 and 9.

Mr. Sayan De, Mr. Sayan Kanjilal, Mr. Kaustuv Shome.

...for the accused nos.3 and 4.

Mr. Rakheswar Dey Sarkar.

...for the accused no.5.

Ms. Anita Kaunda, Ms. Anubrata Dutta.

...for the accused no.6.

Mr. Manoj Malhotra, Mr. Ravi Kumar Dubey, Mr. Samrat Dey Paul.

...for the accused nos.7 and 8.

Mr. Ayan Bhattacherjee, Mr. Aniruddha Bhattacharyya.

...for the accused nos. 10 and 11.

Mr. Arijit Chakraborty, learned advocate, appears on

behalf of the applicant/ED and relies upon a judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal Choudhary &

Ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. reported in 2022 SCC OnLine Sc

929.

Mr. Debasish Roy, learned advocate, appears on behalf of

the opposite party no.1 and challenges the contention advanced by

the learned advocate appearing for the applicant as also draws the

attention of the pendency of issue of Section 45 of Prevention of

Money Laundering Act, 2002 pending before the Larger Bench.

Mr. Biswajit Hazra, learned advocate, appears on behalf

of the accused nos.2 and 9 and submits that the accused no.9 was

not named in the CID charge-sheet and, as such, the rigors of

Section 45 of the said Act are never attracted in so far as accused

no.9 and in so far as the accused no.2 is concerned, he would file

an affidavit.

Mr. Sayan De, learned advocate appearing for the

accused nos.3 and 4 submits that the Enforcement Directorate has

taken a different stand before this Court and the learned trial court.

Learned advocate submits that the accused nos.3 and 4 pursuant

to receipt of summons attended the court and, as such, by no

stretch of imagination, they can be taken into custody when the

Investigating Agency do not require their custodial detention.

Mr. Rakeshwar Dey Sarkar, learned advocate appearing

for the accused no.5 intends to file an affidavit.

Ms. Anita Kaunda, learned advocate, appears on behalf

of the accused no.6 and pleads that the present accused is innocent

of the charges and was never benefited and he has been falsely

implicated and learned advocate intends to use an affidavit.

Mr. Manoj Malhotra, learned advocate appearing on

behalf of the accused nos.7 and 8 prays for dismissal of the

application for cancellation of bail as filed by the Enforcement

Directorate and submits that the judgment relied upon by the

Hon'ble Supreme Court has no relevance in respect of the order

passed.

Mr. Ayan Bhattacherjee, learned advocate appearing for

the opposite party nos.10 and 11 submits that the amendment

incorporated in Section 45 of the said Prevention of Money

Laundering Act cannot have a retrospective effect in respect of ECIR

which were earlier pending. To fortify his argument, learned

advocate distinguishes the judgment relied upon by the

Enforcement Directorate and intends to submit a compilation of

judgments regarding the applicability of the amended provision as

well as the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relying upon the

amended provision.

Let all the affidavits, arguments and compilation be filed

before this Court on 23rd November, 2022 when the matter would

appear under the heading "To Be Mentioned".

All parties shall act on the server copy of this order duly

downloaded from the official website of this Court.

(Tirthankar Ghosh, J.)